Military muscling-With the civil war long over, the armed forces are busy with beauty salons

The very model of a modern headmaster

Mar 23rd 2013

JOSEPH STALIN is unhappy. The boss of a Sri Lankan teachers’ union claims that the country’s schools are losing their independence. Last month, unions say, nearly 4,000 headteachers were invited to interviews at the National Cadet Corps. Successful applicants will get 45 days of training, and then full military titles. The idea, supposedly, is to improve discipline in schools.

The army’s grip is spreading across Sri Lankan society. Activists talk of a general effort to promote military culture among the young, especially among the ethnic Sinhalese majority. Prominent academics and former diplomats say that militarisation has been going on ever since the end of a bloody civil war in 2009. No effort has been made since then to shrink the armed forces.

Indeed, their image is promoted everywhere. On fine evenings in a park in Nawala, a suburb of Colombo, the capital, office workers and families mingle among winding paths and ponds. Children stop to gaze at a favourite attraction: a battle tank beside a gurgling fountain. The park opened in January; it is one of many built by the armed forces.

Elsewhere soldiers fix roads and bridges, put up and renovate houses, remodel cities and even grow and sell vegetables. The army has a brand of hotels, Laya. Not to be outdone, in September the navy launched its own resort called Sober Island (rum, or at least alcohol, served). The navy has also taken to dredging canals and running boat services. Meanwhile, the air force offers helicopter tours and even a beauty salon, “Airforce Clippers”, in Colombo, handy for bridal dressing, sari draping and possibly a crew-cut.

Behind all this is the defence secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who also holds the portfolio of urban development. This month his elder brother, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, officially opened a two-storey banqueting hall on the edge of a lagoon, built by the air force.

Sceptics say all this kind of stuff should be curbed. In the north and east, where the Tamil minority bore the brunt of war, the presence of military men breeds worry. No good reason exists for them to breed crocodiles, run school seminars, conduct whale-watching tours, or operate nurseries. The government retorts that it is better to use servicemen and -women for development than demob them. Their cheap labour, it argues, saved the country 1.5 billion rupees ($12m) last year. It denies private businesses suffer from the competition.

Yet activists fear that a chief reason for spreading military influence is indoctrination. “Leadership training” for university entrants is now run by the army inside military camps, for example. The other Stalin would have applauded.

WORLD: The UN resolution and what the world will learn about Sri Lanka in the coming year

March 22, 2013

Yesterday the United Nations Human Rights Council approved the resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. The gist of the resolution is that the Human Rights Council welcomes the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights offering advice and technical assistance to the government of Sri Lanka for promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, and that the Council encourages the government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the government to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of the violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law as applicable. 

This requires that the government of Sri Lanka becomes aware of the allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. For the government to become aware of the allegations, it must create an environment in which individuals who have allegations to make can approach the government and make those allegations. This means that the government has to create a change in the social ethos so that confidence, not fear, prevails. What the world will learn in the months to come is that no such environment exists in Sri Lanka and that anyone who dares to make such an allegation runs a risk to his or her life. That is the situation that local people know very well. The numbers of people who are no longer alive or who have fled the country in order to remain alive are many. The world has heard many such reports but perhaps these have been regarded as either exceptional instances or exaggerations. Now that the resolution depends on people coming forward to make allegations, it will not be difficult for the world to test as to whether an environment conducive to making such allegations against the government or any of its agencies exists within Sri Lanka. The world will now have a chance to understand and appreciate the fear that the local people experience and know quite well. The world will hear the excuse that the government always gives: that there is no one making allegations to us directly and, therefore, that is proof that no one has any allegations to make. Silence driven by fear is used as evidence of innocence. This is what the world will see in the months to come.

The resolution also obligates the government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation. The world will also learn that a criminal justice system that is capable of conducting independent and credible investigations into allegations does not exist in Sri Lanka. Today, it is not only violations of human rights law and humanitarian law committed by the military, police or paramilitary that go uninvestigated. Even for common crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery and misappropriation, there is no independent and credible investigation system in Sri Lanka. The idea of independence has been replaced with politicisation. What politicisation means is that investigating agencies, such as the police or other special agencies, are completely under the control of the politicians. What this means is that the police and other agencies cannot investigate into any allegation without authorisation from politicians. To be more specific, the government can stop any investigation or order the investigators not to conduct the inquiry in an objective and impartial manner, but to do so in a way so as to let the perpetrators go free. Within the country, the local people know this very well and the world will have the opportunity to witness this situation in the months to come. 

Credible investigations mean investigations that are done following the norms and standards that are expected to be followed in criminal investigations. Whether there is even a memory of such credible work within agencies that are expected to conduct investigations in Sri Lanka is doubtful. There was a time when the Sri Lankan police and other special agencies had a shinning reputation for conducting investigations into even quite mysterious and difficult cases. However, within the last four decades or so, that reputation has been lost and the local people know how ridiculously investigations are conducted. Even murders that have happened in broad daylight, such as the case of the Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, and several other murders, which include the murder of Baratha Lakshman Premachandra (just two well-known examples), high ranking police officers keep on filing one report after another, making all kinds of excuses and, in fact, proving that conducting credible investigations is no longer within their power. To expect credible investigations into crimes in Sri Lanka is like expecting a horse to lay eggs.

Credible investigations require not only the cooperation of policing agencies but also the Attorney General's Department. That the Attorney General's Department is controlled by the Presidential Secretariat and that this department no longer has the power to take any action that offends the government is quite well known to the local people and is a topic that has been talked about extensively. That department, too, had a shining past but its present is as mired as the investigating agencies'. 

In short, what the resolution will provide for is an opportunity for the world to see what the local people have been experiencing for quite a long time now. The possibility of criminal justice is not available even for common crimes, let alone allegations against the military and against actions that may have been done by the police, paramilitary and intelligence agencies under the direct instructions from the top. 

The world will also know that the main obstacles to criminal justice come from the Constitution of the country itself. The Constitution of 1978, which placed the Executive President above the law and made the judiciary and the parliament subordinate to the president, also made all the basic public institutions in the country dysfunctional. The world may think that statement is exaggerated but the local people know the story of the 17th Amendment and the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The world now has not only an opportunity but also a duty to learn what happens to a country when the constitution itself creates a situation of lawlessness. 

In short, what the world will come to know in the coming months is that, in a country where even the Chief Justice does not have the right to a fair and credible inquiry by an independent and impartial body, conducting investigations into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is just a pipe dream. 

Constitutional Challenges To 11 Bills: Summary Of Submissions By Counsel For The Petitioners

By Colombo Telegraph -March 22, 2013

Summary of submissions by Counsel for the petitioners of the challenged 11 Bills.

21 Bills were placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 8th March 2013, 11 of these Bills were challenged, in 15 separate Petitions filed on 14th March 2013. The Supreme Court listed the matter for hearing on 21st and 22nd March 2013.

The Speaker

The Bills challenged were the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Amendment Bill, the Finance (Amendment) Bill, the Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment) Bill, the Strategic Development Projects (Amendment) Bill, the Notaries (Amendment) Bill, the Power of Attorney (Amendment) Bill, the Registration of Documents (Amendment) Bill, the Tax Appeals Commission (Amendment) Bill, the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Bill, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, and the Nation Building Tax (Amendment) Bill

The Counsel for the Petitioners (and Counsel for one intervenient in the Determination related to the Finance (Amendment) Bill) made submissions on 21st March 2013 and the matter was adjourned to 22nd March 2013 for the submissions of the Attorney General.

Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Amendment Bill

J C Weliamuna with Pulasthi Hewamanne appeared for the Petitioner in SC SD 1/2013;
Suren Fernando with Luwie Ganesathasan appeared for the Petitioners in SC SD 2/2013
Counsel submitted that the proposed amendments sought to increase the ability of the executive branch of the government to issue guarantees upto 21% of the GDP, where the present limit was 13.5%. Counsel said that the guarantees could be issued by the executive without prior approval of the Parliament, and this violated Article 148 which requires that Parliament maintains full control over public finance. Further, in the event the guarantees were called upon, the public funds would be expended notwithstanding Parliament not having known or granted approval for the guarantee. Therefore Article 150 would also be effectively violated.

Counsel also submitted that the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act (passed in 2003) as it presently stands requires that the Government reduces loans (from 85% by end 2006) to 60% of the GDP by the end of 2013. Responsible fiscal management would have achieved this. However, having failed to engage in responsible fiscal management, it was now sought to amend the Act so that the levels of State loans at the end of 2013 could be 80%, and the time for achieving a reduction to 60% was extended till 2020.

Counsel said that in a previous determination Court had stated that the details provided in the reports under the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act was insufficient.

Counsel submitted that, the legislature disregarded the determination of the Supreme Court with regard to the Budget (Appropriation Bill 2013) that the prior approval of Parliament was necessary prior to loans being obtained, and that the Bill should be amended to require such prior approval. The legislature passed the Bill without the amendment suggested by Court. Therefore Counsel pointed out that increasing the permissible level of loans would aggravate the violation of Article 148 since the increased level loans (from 60% – 80% of GDP) would also be without prior Parliamentary approval as required by Article 148 (and as determined to be necessary in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 2013 Appropriation Bill case).

Counsel therefore sought a ruling that in view of the abdication of Parliament’s powers Article 76, 4(a) and 3 of the Constitution were also violated and that therefore the Bill would require a 2/3 majority as well as a referendum if it is to be passed.

Finance Amendment Bill

J C Weliamuna with Pulasthi Hewamanne appeared for the Petitioner in SC SD 3/2013
Sanjeewa Jayawardene PC for the intervenient-Petitioner
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Bill sought to grant power to the Minister to declare a Bonded Area, by regulations, resulting in certain tax exemptions and consequential loss of potential revenue. Article 148 requires that Parliament exercises full control of public finance, and therefore the Minister cannot make regulations with regard to tax matters and criteria to be followed to benefit from exemptions. Counsel also argued that this would be a violation of Article 12 since it was unreasonable to grant these powers to the Minister and left room for arbitrary decisions.
Additionally, while stating that the imposition of a Crop Insurance Levy was beneficial, Counsel argued that the Bill made no provision with regard to who could apply for benefits, how it was to be administered etc, and that this could not be left to the Minister to decide by regulations. Article 148 requires that Parliament exercises full control of public finance, and therefore the Minister cannot make regulations with regard to tax matters. It is necessary that the Farmers who are sought to be protected by this Fund, are adequately protected, by clear provisions as to administration of the Fund, which provisions must be set out by Parliament.

Counsel for the intervenient Petitioner stated (with regard to the first argument) that Court must not assume that the Minister will make unreasonable regulations, and that if that is done it could be challenged in Court. Therefore at this stage it cannot be challenged.

Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment) Bill

Suren Fernando with Luwie Ganesathasan appeared for the Petitioner in SC SD 4/2013
Viran Corea with Ermiza Tegal and Juanita Arulanantham for the Petitioner in SC SD 5/2013
Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the proposed waiver of VAT and NBT in respect of Betting and Gaming institutions was irrational and contrary to Article 12(1) especially in a situation where the citizen was forced to pay VAT on numerous essential items, and where gambling is considered a social vice. This was a wrongful exercise of Parliament’s control over public finance.

Further, this was aggravated in the context of the Strategic Development Projects (Amendment) Bill which sought to grant exemptions from even the levy under the Betting and Gaming Act, in certain instances.
They also argued that several provisions were with retrospective effect. In particular the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue had collected certain levies from 1st January, unlawfully, and without statutory authority to do so, and the Bill was now seeking to legitimize this. This too, the Petitioners argued, was contrary to Articles 12 and 148.

Strategic Development Projects (Amendment) Bill

Viran Corea with Ermiza Tegal and Juanita Arulanantham for the Petitioner in SC SD 6/2013
The Petitioner argued that the Bill sought to grant exemptions from the levy under the Betting and Gaming Act. This was irrational and contrary to Article 148 argued the Petitioner, especially since ‘social benefit’ was an essential criteria for a Strategic Development Project, and, gambling being a social vice, could not possibly be regarded as a social benefit. They argued that the extent of irrationality involves under mining Article 12(1) and cannot be passed by a mere simple majority having regard to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the law taken together.

Notaries (Amendment) Bill

Viran Corea with Ermiza Tegal and Juanita Arulanantham for the Petitioner in SC SD 7/2013

Power of Attorney (Amendment) Bill

Viran Corea with Ermiza Tegal and Juanita Arulanantham for the Petitioner in SC SD 8/2013

Registration of Documents (Amendment) Bill

Pulasthi Hewamanne for the Petitioner in SC SD 9/2013
In the above three cases the Petitioners’ Counsel argued that several provisions were with retrospective effect. Certain public officers had collected certain levies from 1st January 2013, unlawfully, and without statutory authority to do so, and the Bill was now seeking to legitimize this. This, the Petitioners argued, was contrary to Articles 12 and 148. They quoted case law to show that such practices are frowned upon as they run counter to the need to ensure certainty of the law, prevention of situations of unfair advantage and that the Rule of Law would be threatened by passing such provisions.

Tax Appeals Commission (Amendment) Bill

Ronald Perera PC with Chandimal Mendis for the Petitioner in SC SD 10/2013
The Petitioner argued that there was discriminatory treatment with regard to Tax Appeals Commission appeals from Inland Revenue Assessments and Customs Appeals, and a 10% deposit was only required in the former. Additionally there was no reason why the 10% deposit should be non-refundable – in the event of the tax payer winning the appeal, this should be refunded.

Value Added Tax (Amendment) Bill

Ronald Perera PC with Chandimal Mendis for the Petitioner in SC SD 11/2013
The Petitioner argued that several provisions were sought to be with retrospective effect and in violation of the Rule of Law / Article 12.

Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill

Senura Abeywardena for the Petitioner in SC SD 12/2013
Suren Fernando for the Petitioner in SC SD 13/2013
The Petitioners argued that an irrational and discriminatory tax exemption for advertisements / sponsorships of international sporting events ‘approved by the Minister’ was sought to be given with backdated effect. They argued that an international sporting event is not defined in the law, and this left room for the Minister to exercise powers arbitrarily. The definition of such an event in the case of a tax law was a matter for Parliament (in the exercise of its control over public finance in terms of Article 148) and could not be delegated to anyone else.
Further, although certain tax exemptions had been provided for certain other matters, it was now sought to add further criteria in order to be eligible for same. This, they argued, violated Article 12(1).

Nation Building Tax (Amendment) Bill

Suren Fernando for the Petitioner in SC SD 14/2013
J C Weliamuna with Pulasthi Hewamanne for the Petitioner in SC SD 15/2013;
The Petitioners argued that an irrational and discriminatory NBT tax exemption for advertisements / sponsorships of international sporting events ‘approved by the Minister’. They argued that an international sporting event is not defined in the law, and this left room for the Minister to exercise powers arbitrarily. The definition of such an event in the case of a tax law was a matter for Parliament (in the exercise of its control over public finance in terms of Article 148) and could not be delegated to anyone else.

Similarly the Minister and the Secretary to the Ministry were given powers to determine certain other tax exemptions. The criteria was not defined by the Bill. This, similarly, left room for the Minister to exercise powers arbitrarily, and contravened Articles 148 and 12.

Further, it was sought to retrospectively increase the base on which NBT was charged, in certain cases. This would be in violation of Article 12, they argued.

The Customs / Inland Revenue had collected certain taxes from 1st January, unlawfully, and without statutory authority to do so, and the Bill was now seeking to legitimize this. This, the Petitioners argued, was contrary to Articles 12 and 148.

Related stories;

Full Text Of Petitions Filed In The SC Challenging The Load Of Bills Suddenly Sought To Be Passed

Chief Justice 43, Chief guest of 39th BASL AGM?

Friday, 22 March 2013 

Unconfirmed reports say that 43th CJ of Sri Lanka - Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake is to attend as Chief Guest to the 39th AGM of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and at the function where Attorney-at-Law Upul Jayasuriya will assume duties as the President of the BASL.

All political leaders have been invited to the event, which will be held at the Royal College auditorium on March 30.

It is tradition for the CJ to deliver the keynote address when a new BASL Chairman assumes duties.

The event will be followed by a cocktail event at the Cinnamon Grand for a select number of guests.

However, Dr. Bandaranayake is yet to officially confirm her participation of the cocktail event, reports say.

Courtesy - Mirror.lk

Personal mobile phones of security forces personnel registered

Friday, 22 March 2013

It has been made compulsory to register the SIM cards of personal mobile phones used by police and security forces personnel.

The Defence Secretary has issued the directive for the personal mobile SIM cards to be registered with a division at the Defence Ministry.

The military personnel who gave us the information said the real reason for registering the personal mobile SIM cards is to record all conversations of telephone calls taken and received by the respective mobile phones.

These new regulations have been introduced to the security forces personnel after photographs backing war crimes charges were sent to the international media via mobile phones. The military personnel who spoke to us said this action was similar to shutting the stables once the horse had bolted.

“Namal Baby has made me a mahout” – Willie Gamage

Friday, 22 March 2013

Botanical Gardens and Public Recreational Affairs Ministry Secretary Willie Gamage is seen these days traveling about the Mattala International Airport with a baby elephant, sources from the airport said.

When MP Namal Rajapaksa had tried to carry takes against Gamage to the President, the President had said, “Son, you are closely associating Indika Karunajeewa. In the same manner, it was Karunajeewa and Gamage who have been closely associated with me. I cannot chase him away just on a whim.” Angered by the President’s words, Namal had walked away from where the President was without saying a word.

Namal had met Gamage at W. Karunajeewa’s funeral recently. Seeing Gamage, Namal had lost his temper and said, “Ah old man, don’t you have nay plans on retiring any time soon?” The reason Namal’s witch hunt against Gamage is due to a story published in our website on January 1st about an attempt by Namal to extort billions from a graphite mine. Namal believes that the details for the story were given by Gamage.

Since he would be a constant target for Namal if he stayed in Colombo, Gamage has now shifted to Mattala with a baby elephant.

The Last Letter: A Message To George W. Bush And Dick Cheney

March 20, 2013 

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

Minister Baird Welcomes UN Resolution on Sri Lanka

March 21, 2013 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:

“Canada welcomes the adoption of a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council that expresses growing international concern over Sri Lanka’s ongoing failure to address serious allegations of human rights violations that occurred in 2009. The Council also expressed concerns regarding threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, reports of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

“Canada was proud to support this initiative. I am pleased that the UN Human Rights Council is maintaining its focus on this gravely disturbing situation.

“The resolution reminds courageous individuals and their families, as well as victims of human rights violations, that they have not been forgotten by the international community. Canada will continue to pursue this issue—and other troubling recent developments like the weakening of judicial independence and the rule of law in Sri Lanka—through multilateral and other channels, including the Commonwealth.”

The Human Rights Council approved today’s resolution with 25 countries supporting the resolution, 13 countries voting against and 8 abstaining.

- 30 -

A backgrounder follows.

For further information, media representatives may contact:

Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Follow us on Twitter: @DFAIT_MAECI

Backgrounder

The resolution, led by the United States and co-sponsored by Canada, calls on Sri Lanka to deliver on its promises to investigate widespread allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights during the military campaign of May 2009.

This resolution calls on Sri Lankan leaders to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expeditiously and effectively implement the recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to initiate credible actions to ensure justice, equity and accountability.

To date, Sri Lanka has not addressed the grave accusations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights that occurred toward the end of the conflict. Since the end of the conflict, Sri Lanka has taken steps that undermine freedom of expression, judicial independence and the rule of law, and has failed to address disturbing reports of ongoing human rights violations.

Canada and the international community continue to call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into the serious violations of international law committed during the war.

Ambassador Donahoe Press Statement After Adoption of HRC Resolution on Sri Lanka

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013

The resolution, its follow up actions interim update in September and a comprehensive report in March 2014, is a strong signal that the international community intends to remain seized with the situation in Sri Lanka

Ambassador Eileen Donahoe speaking to the press at the UN in Geneva.

I’d like to open with a few general remarks about the current session and then turn to the important resolution on Sri Lanka that just passed.

This session, which draws to a close tomorrow, has been one of the most significant in the Council’s short history.   The packed agenda and vast portfolio of country situations and human rights issues that we have dealt with in this session serve as clear evidence of the dramatic improvement in the Council’s functioning and in its ability to serve as the lead entity in the UN for promoting and protecting human rights.

In addition to the formal work of Council members in the chamber behind us, I will note that more than 150 different parallel events sponsored by NGOs, civil society and governments have taken place.  These activities signal that human rights defenders and civil society do consider now the Human Rights Council as an essential platform and venue for their work and for ensuring that international attention and focus remains on important human rights issues.

Let me come now to the resolution that was just adopted by the Council overwhelmingly on the subject of the human rights situation, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.
Ambassador Eileen Donahoe speaking to the press at the UN in Geneva.
The resolution just passed should be seen as both an expression of support by the international community to the people of Sri Lanka, and as an expression of encouragement and concern to the government of Sri Lanka.  The international community has sent a message that lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka will require meaningful steps toward truth and accountability.

Today, in effect, the international community came together to call upon the government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its stated obligation to its own people to take concrete steps to move forward to address outstanding issues related to truth and reconciliation, and by meeting its obligation on accountability.

The resolution relied upon the detailed report of the High Commissioner Navi Pillay, which made clear that Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on reconciliation and accountability, including the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism as an integral part of transitional justice.  The resolution passed today also addresses the growing concerns over the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including reports of forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, as well as intimidations and reprisals against human rights defenders.
Over the past year the United States and many others have expressed strong concern over the lack of process on these vital issues as well as backsliding on respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The United States, along with 40 co-sponsors, put forward this resolution in a spirit of friendship toward the people of Sri Lanka, but also out of genuine concern about the lack of follow-through on the promises by the government of Sri Lanka to carry out a credible form of domestic accountability.  We are concerned about some worrying signs of back sliding with respect to the rule of law and protection of human rights in the current situation as well.

The United States stands ready to assist Sri Lanka as it makes necessary progress on these longstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability.  The Office of the High Commissioner, as well as the Special Procedures, are also standing by ready to assist the government of Sri Lanka with technical assistance and capacity building so that they can move forward toward a sustainable peace and reconciliation, based on truth and accountability.

The resolution, which includes specific follow up actions including an interim update by the High Commissioner in September and a comprehensive report in March 2014 by the Office of the High Commissioner, is a strong signal that the international community intends to remain seized with the situation in Sri Lanka.

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe,
U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council

At a press stake-out at the United Nations,
Geneva,
March 21, 2013

UNHRC passes resolution against Sri Lanka rights record

Council calls on Sri Lanka to conduct investigation into alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law

(Lanka-e-News-21.March.2013, 10.00PM) The Human Rights Council this morning adopted two decisions and nine resolutions. It called upon Sri Lanka to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law; and extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. In its resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, adopted by 25 votes in favour, 13 votes against and 8 abstentions, the Council welcomed the report of the High Commissioner on this issue and encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations contained therein. The Council also called upon the Government to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Council decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism for a period of three years; and requested all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance his mandate. In a resolution regarding the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote as orally revised, the Council decided to examine this question at its twenty-third session under the same agenda item. The Council also decided to focus its next annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities, to be held at its twenty-fifth session, on their right to education; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on the right of persons with disabilities to education and to make it available prior to the twenty-fifth session of the Council. The Council urged States to ensure that persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities were aware of and able to exercise their rights; and requested the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to continue to provide the assistance necessary for the effective fulfilment of the mandate of the Independent Expert on minority issues. Concerning the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, the Council requested the Secretary-General to continue to prepare and submit to the Council an annual report on the question of the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights, with a special focus on access to justice relating to violations of economic, social and cultural rights. In a resolution on protecting human rights defenders, the Council called upon States to ensure that all legal provisions affecting human rights defenders were clearly defined, determinable and non-retroactive, in order to avoid potential abuse. The Council urged States to acknowledge publicly the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders in the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, as an essential component of ensuring their protection. Regarding birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, the Council requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a report on barriers to access to universal birth registration and possession of documentary proof of birth, as well as on good practices adopted by States in fulfilling their obligation to ensure birth registration. Introducing resolutions and decisions were the President of the Human Rights Council and the delegations of United States, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Austria, Portugal, Norway and Turkey. Pakistan, India, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Montenegro, Suisse, Sierra Leone, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Ethiopia and United States made general comments. Indonesia, Thailand, Republic of Korea, Japan, United States and Maldives spoke in explanation of vote before or after the vote. Sri Lanka spoke as a concerned country. Action on Resolution on Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka In a resolution (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev1) on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 13 against and 8 abstentions, the Council welcomes the report of the High Commissioner on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka; encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of the High Commissioner, and to cooperate with Special Procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access. The Council also calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; and requests the High Commissioner to present an oral update to the Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion at the twenty-fifth session, on the implementation of the present resolution. The result of the vote was as follows: In favour (25): Argentina, Austria, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Italy, Libya, Montenegro, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Switzerland and United States. Against (13): Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Abstentions (8): Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya and Malaysia. United States, introducing resolution L.1, encouraged Sri Lanka to take the necessary steps to ensure accountability and lasting peace following almost three decades of civil war. The resolution welcomed important progress made by Sri Lanka but also recognized that much remained to be done. The resolution also highlighted the constructive role of the Office of the High Commissioner and of special procedures’ mandate holders in providing technical assistance and advice, and encouraged Sri Lanka to cooperate these actors. Pakistan, speaking in a general comment, said that the delegation of Sri Lanka had briefed several delegations bilaterally and in regional groups and had explained in detail why it found the resolution unacceptable despite several revisions. In draft resolution 22/L.1, Pakistan observed that the parameters had been shifted with the introduction of substantive elements and this was of concern, given that Sri Lanka was being asked in effect to implement the recommendations of the Office of the High Commissioner’s report with disregard to the on-going domestic reconciliation process. The substantive amendments proposed by Pakistan and other delegations during informal sessions, intended to bring some semblance of balance to the text, had been disregarded. Pakistan then called for a vote on the resolution. India, speaking in a general comment, said that the resolution on Sri Lanka provided an opportunity to forge a way forward through national and inclusive reconciliation. India noted with concern that Sri Lanka had not kept its 2009 commitments and called on Sri Lanka to move forward on its public commitments and to take measures to ensure accountability. India had always been of the view that the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka had presented an opportunity to achieve a lasting peace. Sri Lanka’s elections scheduled for 2013 were an opportunity for its people to exercise their electoral right in a free environment. Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said that the European Union fully supported all efforts to promote reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. The European Union noted that the main sponsor had reached out to the country concerned and had sought to address a number of its concerns. Genuine reconciliation was essential and required justice and accountability for past events. The European Union urged Sri Lanka to carry out independent, credible investigations of alleged violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. The European Union urged the Government to cooperate with the special procedures’ mandate holders and to respond to all outstanding requests. Montenegro, speaking in a general comment, fully aligned itself with the resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, which it saw as a step towards achieving lasting peace. Montenegro welcomed the improvements made by Sri Lanka and joined with other countries in encouraging the Sri Lankan Government to take additional steps towards the promotion of justice and the implementation of real reconciliation. Justice would be essential if there was to be true reconciliation after a long and divisive civil war in the country. Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, welcomed the submission of the resolution on Sri Lanka and remained concerned about the human rights situation in the country. Switzerland underlined the importance of dialogue and cooperation for the process of achieving reconciliation and encouraged Sri Lanka to enhance its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and with special procedures’ mandate holders. Sierra Leone, speaking in a general comment, said that as a country that had witnessed a bloody and destructive 10-year civil war and from which it that had bounced back through genuine reconciliation and accountability, was compelled to support this resolution. Sierra Leone considered it to be fair, balanced and designed to bring about accountability and reconciliation. Sierra Leone was aware of the glaring fact that the only way to bring meaningful and sustainable reconciliation was through an end to impunity and through meaningful accountability. This resolution did just that in a fair way. Sierra Leone supported it and called on other States to do the same. Brazil, speaking in a general comment, said that it had followed with interest and concern the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and that it showed challenges and advancements since the end of the conflict in 2009. The Sri Lankan Government had made significant progress in building infrastructure and resettling displaced persons. Cooperation with the United Nations human rights’ mechanisms was a two-way street and Brazil encouraged the High Commissioner to act upon the invitation of the Government to visit the country. Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, categorically rejected the selectivity and double standards which were increasingly used in the Council against the will of countries concerned, as had been the case with Sri Lanka. The Council was turning a blind eye to the efforts that Sri Lanka was undertaking to improve the human rights situation. Venezuela warned about the serious risks created by the interventionist approaches of certain Members of the Council and stated that would vote against the resolution. Ecuador, speaking in a general comment, said that it had always condemned violations of human rights anywhere in the world. There should be no biased approach to specific countries nor should double standards be tolerated in the Council. Sri Lanka was showing signs of political will to improve the human rights situation and, therefore, Ecuador would vote against the resolution on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, speaking as the concerned country, said that the draft resolution before the Council was premised upon resolution 19/2 of 2012 which was not recognised by Sri Lanka. Despite its dissociation with that initiative, Sri Lanka had shown clear progress towards comprehensive reconciliation including by the preparation and implementation of the action plan called for by the resolution. The draft resolution before the Council today was unacceptable to Sri Lanka. The present draft moved dramatically away from the ambit and scope of previous resolution 19/2 and the preambular part of the text was highly intrusive, replete with misrepresentations and, in its overall scope, accentuated the negative and eliminated or was dismissive of the positive. The tone set for the rest of the document was overwhelmingly pessimistic. The paragraph dealing with progress achieved ignored many areas of clear progress. It also sought to allege continuing reports of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief when this was manifestly not the case. Sri Lanka’s constructive engagement through the Universal Periodic Review process had unfortunately been ignored. The operative paragraphs of the text showed they were based on a political process. Sri Lanka noted that the report introduced new elements such as an international inquiry, incidentally first proposed by the Council in May 2009. The reference to the Panel of Experts’ report set the dangerous precedent of introducing unsubstantiated reports. Sri Lanka totally rejected attempts by the Office of the High Commissioner and others to introduce elements of the Panel of Experts’ report, which attempted to legitimize its recommendations and seek to impose them on Sri Lanka. Why this preoccupation with Sri Lanka? Why the inordinate and disproportionate attention, despite so much progress in a relatively short period of time? Given the background and anomalous nature of the text, many countries would naturally have concerns as it could establish a bad precedent. Stakeholders may be forewarned that if the current tendency towards politicization continued the Council may face the fate of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Rather than singled out, Sri Lanka should be encouraged in its current process of reconciliation. Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it could not go along with the resolution on Sri Lanka because it believed that during this difficult transitional period Sri Lanka deserved support and assistance. Sri Lanka should be allowed to spend its energy and resources on the implementation of its National Action Plan. The adoption of Sri Lanka’s Universal Periodic Review last week demonstrated the country’s engagement with United Nations’ mechanisms. Thailand, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it remained concerned about the draft resolution on Sri Lanka and would vote against it. The resolution did not take into account the continuing progress which Sri Lanka was making in the implementation of recommendations. Thailand urged Sri Lanka to continue to ensure accountability and to combat impunity, but recognized that the process would take time. Republic of Korea, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted with appreciation the efforts and the achievements made by Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and rehabilitating child soldiers. Republic of Korea understood the importance of accountability for genuine reconciliation and the considerable difficulties faced in the process of ensuring it. The Republic of Korea would vote in favour of this resolution. Japan, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it attached utmost importance to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Japan welcomed certain progress in rebuilding infrastructure and resettlement of internally displaced persons. However many challenges remained. Japan encouraged Sri Lanka to make the utmost efforts to continue to cooperate with the international community. It would abstain from the vote on the resolution.

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric: Dangerously Familiar

By Dharisha Bastians - March 22, 2013 |

Dharisha Bastians

“Last night, I dreamt Buddha was shot dead by the Police, guardians of the law. His body drenched in blood on the steps of the Jaffna Library. Under cover of darkness came the ministers. “His name is not on our list, why did you kill him?” they ask angrily, “No sirs, no, there was no mistake. Without killing him it was impossible to harm a fly” From Buddha Murdered by poet M.A. Nuhman

As the sun blazed down on a warm Sunday afternoon in February, rows of young men and women lined the balcony of a Municipal building in the centre of Maharagama town. They wore white t-shirts bearing a ‘no-Halal’ sign and each carried a small Buddhist flag. On a cue by saffron-robed monks on the ground, they placed their right hands on their chests and took a pledge to safeguard the Sinhala race and the Buddhist faith. Thousands more gathered at the town centre for a massive rally, a Sinhala-Buddhist call to arms against alleged Muslim extremism sweeping through the country.

An organization calling itself Bodu Bala Sena, or ‘Buddhist Power Force’ has been gaining a groundswell of support in recent weeks. The monk led organization is building task-forces throughout the country and insisting on a Government ban on the Halal certification important to Muslim consumers of meat and other food products. At a massive rally in Maharagama in late February, hardline monks launched what they claimed would be a ‘relentless anti-Halal’ campaign and issued an ultimatum to the Government to ban the certification process before the end of March.

And they will not stop there. 

The organization is also seeking a ban on sending Lankan women for work to the Middle East, mosque-building and certain contraceptive methods that they claimed were aimed at depleting the Sinhala population. Supporters at the rally cheered enthusiastically when hardline Bodu Bala Sena monks made speeches charged with provocative ethno-religious rhetoric, denounced alleged Muslim extremism and charged that minorities must ‘know their place’ in Sri Lanka.

This virulent anti-Muslim campaign is deeply wounding the trust between the Sinhalese and Muslim communities, especially in urban centres in the country. The Government can crack down on the hardliners – using the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act if they wish to, but thus far, there appears to be a benign acceptance of the status quo. The Bodu Bala Sena and its campaign against Halal Foods is proving an useful distraction from the burgeoning economic concerns of the ordinary Sri Lankan.

This political complacence in the face of a spiralling culture of hate and intolerance has proved fatal for Sri Lanka in the past.

Thirty years ago one week in July defined the country for decades to come. The communal violence directed primarily at the Tamil population left more than 2000 dead and Tamil businesses and homes in ruins in 1983. The carnage and shame of Black July will outlive this generation of Sri Lankans. It pushed the country into full-fledged civil war, provided temporary legitimacy to separatist claims and robbed Sri Lanka – perhaps permanently – of its claim of being a society of pluralistic values, celebrating and embracing the ethnically diverse. Yet July 1983 was no spontaneous uprising against tragic events in a far off battlefield in the island’s north. That week of violence was preceded by years of anti-Tamil sentiment prevailing in the island, fostered in no small measure by the political leadership of the time. Mass hysteria and communal violence may have caused irreparable damage to a nation’s psyche in 1983, but the fires had been fanned for years, with the systematic demonization of the Tamils: as standing in the way of Sinhala jobs, Sinhala enterprise, and Sinhala progress.

Rhetoric is a powerful thing. And the voices of intolerance are being raised again, at forums like the Bodu Bala Sena rally and even across internet and social media platforms. The trouble with this persistent creation of an enemy is that when things spiral out of control, a frenzied mob that no longer recognizes a leader knows exactly which community will be the target of its wrath.

Black July’s most damning legacy is political apathy. The same could be said of the Tamil separatist movement, that the Tamil political leadership initially believed was born of youthful passion; a useful but mostly harmless tool of leverage to win minority rights. It ended in the near-wipe out of the moderate Tamil political leadership in Sri Lanka. One by one, the LTTE called out its former guardians as traitors to the separatist cause and ruthlessly eliminated them. Forces of extremism, once unleashed, like the dogs of war cannot be recalled. Provided the space, they grow quietly in the dark, morphing into monstrosities that ultimately rob a nation’s soul. A political leadership that is unwilling to identify the dangers of the emerginganti-Muslim trend is courting trouble. The kind of trouble that could plunge Sri Lanka back into ethno-religious conflict even as the country struggles to recover from a protracted civil war.

The Bodu Bala Sena thrives on the legitimacy afforded to the organization by its saffron-clad leaders. It veils its patently racist agendas in claims that its efforts are aimed at safeguarding the country’s Buddhist heritage and perpetuating the race that holds custodianship of the religion. If in the short term, the battle against extremist forces like the Bodu Bala Sena must be waged on an ideological level, Buddhism may also be the simplest way to defeat hardline claims. The soft power of Buddhism, the concepts of ahimsa, tolerance and loving kindness may be alien to the monks leading the anti-Muslim charge, but they can still form the basis upon which other sections of the Buddhist community could be swayed. To wage war against a community of people, to declare the superiority of one race over the other, to preach hatred and division flies in the face of the Buddha’s teachings. If this is the land of the Buddha, intolerance has no place here. If Sri Lanka is the heartland of Theravada Buddhism, ahimsa must be the Buddhists’ only battle-cry. The battle of ideas is won here: grounded in the irrefutable truth that Buddhism and extremism are a contradiction in terms.